“The spread of the Atlas Shrugged movie is just part of a wider Atlas Shrugged phenomenon–and part of the Tea Party phenomenon.The Tea Party movement began, in last 2008 and early 2009, during a huge surge in interest in Ayn Rand’s masterwork, when talk of “going Galt”–a reference to one of the novel’s heroes–sent Atlas Shrugged back onto the best-seller lists after more than 50 years. The two phenomena are connected.”
Tracinski:
While the spread of Atlas was definitely helped out by the breakout of of the TP movement, you will note that the connection between the two is not the kind of connection you want it to be. You want to make the TP movement out to be an intellectual movement, and connect it to an intellectual novel. But it’s not. It’s an emotional reaction to the ever-increasing size and scope of our government, and to the social policies implemented by this administration. There are no rational ideas at the base of the TP movement.
The only thing rational about the TP movement, is that it is unofficially backed by Atlas Shrugged. Atlas and the Constitution are the unofficial ideological underpinning of the Tea Party movement, because that’s the most politically and philosophically consistent document which most TP members can point to as a reference. Without them, the mainstream TP movement is a mish-mash of people who are intellectual and smarter than the average American about the Founding of our country and about the Constitution and the government, but it’s not an intellectual movement in and of itself, with a centralized message and rational ideological premises. And if it is, I have yet to hear what this centralized message and rational premises are, from guys like you, who are the TP movement’s ideological backers.
But even with these two documents, not all and not most TP members understand the principles behind them. For example, they don’t all understand the ideas behind the Declaration of independence, such as the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What would the average TP member say is the basis of the right to pursuit of happiness or property, for example? What would the average TP member say is the basis for our right to freedom of speech and religion?
There is too much of variation in the ideology of the average TP member. Note that they come from all over the place. And you can’t really have a consistent movement of people who are all over the place politically. Hasn’t that already been proven by the failed Libertarian movement? Isn’t there ample proof in their 50 odd year history? And yes, I DO compare it to the libertarian movement, which also gets its ideological steam from Atlas Shrugged and AR.
Many of these people are anarchists, and some are even conservative Republicans. Basically, I echo everything that Peter Schwartz wrote in his article “Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty”, as it pertains to both Libertarians, and also to TP members–but I cut the TP members some more slack, because their movement is less intellectual, and therefore potentially less malevolent. I would even go so far as to apply some of the criticisms of libertarians to the average TP member. For example, many TP members would agree with liberty, as an end in itself, and many hold the concept of liberty, as a floating abstraction. Think of what disastrous consequences this idea has, for the rest of one’s philosophy. It’s all outlined in Schwatz’ article. Why not re-read it, and substitute the TP everywhere the word Libertarian is written, and see how much of an analogy you can draw between the two.
At the psycho-epistemological level, the TP movement and its members are benevolent, but ignorant. They get the fact that government is too large, and needs to be cut down in size. They get the fact that our taxes are too high, and that government corruption is too much. But ask them fundamental questions, suach as the source of our rights, and the nature of government, and where it derives its just powers–and the average TP member (as opposed to the average Objectivist) will greet you with a blank stare.
Compare that to the average progressive leftist, who actually has the opposite philosophy as the average Objectivist. I ask you to make this comparison, because the TP is SUPPOSED to be the antidote for the progressive entitlement society that we live in. And therefore, the average TP member, must be the antipode, to the average progessive leftist of today. Yet the average TP member, will not have the intellectual firepower, to counter the average progessive’s consistently anti-freedom, anti-reason mentality, and consequent entitlement society world-view.
Therefore, we cannot rely on the TP movement and its members, as a means to save our country from the progressives. We can rely on the underlying documents–the Constitution, the Declaration, and Atlas. But we can’t rely on the people, and the ideas (or lack thereof) of the movement itself.
You once said that this is a temporary movement, and once it achieves its objective, it will dissolve. But it’s objective is so large in size and scope–namely to cut the size and scope of government–an objective which requires such a large context of knowledge both politically and philosophically and economically, that it is not possible to achieve without the full Objectivist philosophy held in context.
Guys like you will give the TP movement some intellectual ammo. But the ammo is wasted, because there is no substance behind it. There are no rational ideas held as the basis for these cosmetic political ideas which they are trying to implement.
When you implement political ideas without a philosophical basis for them, they are wasted implementations. The Founding of this country was such an enormous acheivement–not because we got a document (the constitution) out it–but we got with that, a full ideological revolution. Granted, that revolution was a consequence of many decades of prior political-philosophical thought, and that not everyone on the ‘American street’ possessed those thoughts–but they understood those thoughts and their consequences, as a result of the bloody revolution. They saw and understood why these rights are so important, in a very real way–a real way that we can’t experience, because we weren’t deprived of them to begin with, like they were.
But the TP movement, who seeks to have a material consequence to their efforts–presumably, something constitutional, or the repeal of certain laws currently on the books–is unlike the founding in other ways, specifically because it seeks to have it’s (the TP movement’s) consequences, without the requisite ideology which necessarily precedes the consequences. In other words, it is a movement which lacks a philosophical basis, and which seeks consquences which can only be philosophically attained. To put it in AR’s terminology, it’s the desire for the un-earned, in mind, body or spirit. But you can’t really attain the un-earned in mind. You can get the good grade, even if you cheated to get it. But the good grade on your report card, doesn’t mean you possess the knowledge which the grade presumes you do.
YOu can’t get something for nothing. You must always pay for what you get–whether now or in the future. The TP movement seeks to get something now, and hopes to pay for it in the future (kind of like how the Progessives’ vision of the entitlement society is–give them goodies now, and figure out how to pay for it in the future). Ayn Rand has attempted to help us pay for the TP’s desired consequences. But the members of the TP movement haven’t done the required mind-work, to pay for it. As a result of this intellectual emptiness, and lack of intellectual funding, the TP movement will suffer the same fate as the Libertarian movement–whose members the TP movement have undoubtedly borrowed for a while.
The TP movement will start out strong (that is where it’s at right now), and attempt to achieve liberty as an end in itself, for lack of any other political objective. It will be a reactive movement, which will attempt to repeal perceived restrictive legislation, such as obama care. But it will never have a positive platform or agenda, due to the plurality of ideological views held by it’s members.
It will attract a mish-mash of individuals with all kinds of political ideas, but take most of its most potent ideas from its Objectivist members. Most others will not understand the Objectivist ideas, but will accept the political conclusions of them.
Eventually, the movement will start to fall apart when there is no clear and direct political path ahead. Some people will try to hijack the TP movement, and make it about specific issues. Others will try to reconcile it with Objectivist ideas, and others will try to liken it to whatever other political or philosophical leanings they have. But eventually, it will come to an end.
Tracinski: get out of this movement before it’s too late. Don’t waste your time and effort on it. And remember, that the only reason we even have a backlash movement such as the TP movement, is because of Atlas Shrugged, and because of the Objectivist movement, which is the REAL ideological and philosophical movement of our time.
The only way to defeat the liberal-progressive agenda, is to do it at the fundamental level–at the level of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The politics will come as a result. But in this era of Obama and the coming-of-age of the progressive movement, it’s clear to me that, while the Objectivist movement is also beginning to come to a head as the only alternative, that we still have many years of work to do, to undo the fundamental premises underlying the entitlement society that we live in.
Regards,
Sev A.
